Forum Post: Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, or something similar to Canadian laws against lying on the Air
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 12:51 p.m. EST by verita87
(140)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In 1971, the FCC established the Fairness Doctrine which required radio stations to give equal time to political candidates and to differing views on controversial issues. It was abolished in 1986 by Reagan in order to get government out of business. Also, some journalists worried that it interfered with the freedom of speech. More about the Fairness Doctrine: http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=fairnessdoct
The end of the Fairness Doctrine maked the rise of punditry and allowed news organizations such as Fox News to exist. Canadian citizens recently blocked the repeal of laws that make it illegal to lie on the air. This kept Sun TV News (akin to Fox News) out of Canada http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/tv/story/2010/06/15/quebecor-news-channel-suntv.html .
Here are two links to articles about this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crtc-plan-to-lift-ban-on-false-news-prompts-political-investigation/article1898147/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/crtc-ditches-bid-to-allow-fake-news/article1921489/
The Fairness Doctrine itself may be a threat to free speech, but I think we should have FCC rules similar to Canada's laws against lying on the air.
Comments?
This is an excellent suggestion AND I want to correct verita87 on one point.
Another name for the Fairness Doctrine is Equal Time. That's what it was called when it was still in effect. It has nothing to do with truth or lying. Those are hard to prove.
Equal Time meant that any political viewpoint disseminated over the nation's airwaves had to be balanced by offering an equal amount of time to the opposing viewpoint. Imagine Rush Limbaugh's radio show but with every other caller able to rebut Rush's viewpoint with a secondary host for support.
The law was difficult to enforce but the repeal is one of the worst things that ever happened to the USA in the 20th Century.
I speak as a student of Journalism with a degree from a well known university from the days when equal time, substantiation and attribution were the bedrock foundation of the profession.
Thank you for your correction.
I am suggesting that we encat a law similar to the Canadian laws against lying on the air. Hopefully, fact checking would become and integral part of journalsim. Perhaps combine the ideas of "Equal Time" and the prevention of lying.
It seems to work in Canada.
Agreed.
There is nothing stopping the left from being on the radio? They've had Air America and it wasn't supported by enough people. Why put out a product no one is asking for?
The Fairness Doctrine relied on the presentation of competing ideas together in the same program.
It was based on principles that are bigger than the commercial marketplace. When it was introduced around 1949, people still remembered that Germany was a modern developed country with democracy where mass communications were used to shape public opinion in subtle and insidious ways. When the Fairness Doctrine went into effect, there was unanimous consent that the people who are privileged to use our airwaves had an obligation to present more than one side of an issue, an obligation to inform the public completely, and an obligation to protect our democracy. The idea was not to divide the population into separate groups we now call "echo chambers" where we only hear one side of an issue.
It's not meant to be partisan. I believe our present day problems and the divisiveness that hinders progress stem directly from the repeal of equal time.
I agree, how can people make informed decisions when there is so much nonsense to wade through?
bump me up. how did my comment end up with -2? I understand people might disagree with me, but I think my comment has more factual substance than some of what's further up the thread.
The air time would be equal on every radio station. 30 minutes for the right, 30 minutes for the left.
Why not television?
Courts have upheld the right to lie on the air. A case involving none other than Fox News resulted in a decision by the Florida Court of Appeals that Fox has a first amendment right to lie on the air:
NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC., versus JANE AKRE Case No. 2D01-529
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
"Fox" argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so."
http://baltimorechronicle.com/lyingislegal_apr03.html
Interesting, I wonder if that would stand up in the Supreme Court...I guess what I'm getting at is, we need protections for people who don't know they're being mis-led.
The Fairness Doctrine helped with that because conflicting views counteract each other, each "side" could present its version of truth and the viewer had to decide.
I agree the point of journalism should be to present facts and allow the reader/viewer to choose their own point of view.
How about a better education system that teaches critical thinking skills?
I was thinking about that last night.
I'm very thankful that I went to college and had the experience of getting a "C" on a paper if my sources were unreliable or improperly cited.
Often I will get riled up about something, but when I actually try find news stories about it, I find that the issue isn't as extreme as I first imagined.
The way that Fox News distorts information is so obvious that, to me, it's miraculous that people don't notice it. When I took Japanese History and Culture, our professor showed as an old documentary form the 70s that distored the Japanese into a superstitious breed of robot-people. HIs purpose was to point out how one or two insignificant facts can be used to twist a view point. Ever since then I've looked at the news differently.
I think it's imperative that people understand the meaning of a fact, how to determine the reliability of a fact, and be able to understand what conclusions be derived from a particular fact (and what cannot). How can Democracy exist without an informed public?
If everyone had this education, maybe we wouldn't need any rules about broadcast...stories which were clearly ridiculous would simply be ignored. Unfortunately things don't seem to work this way.
It's not only about people being better at critical thinking. There just isn't enough time in the day to fact check everything you hear on the news. Laws against lying on the air are obviously beneficial to everyone except the person that is doing the lying.
You may run into a problem defining 'lie'. Most of what is on the news is spin, not a direct contradiction of fact. It may be misleading, but you will have a really hard time making a law prohibiting 'misleading', and an even tougher time enforcing it.
This is one of the reasons why several countries have strong public television networks next to commercial ones. It helps balance things out, to a degree.
The Fairness Doctrine has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. It was dismantled by the FCC under a Republican administration, coincidentally(?) right after Rupert Murdoch acquired 20th Century Fox and several other large US media properties.
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969:
"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. "
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969
Thanks for the research.
I think this line from the court's decision was very significant too:
"It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. "
The rights of "the people" were paramount, not the rights of a company holding the license.
Wonder what today's court might say.
I look at it like this: If the federal government builds a road with tax payer money, should only certain people have access to the road even though everybody paid for it? Should people be able to have chains on their car in the summer causing premature breakdown of the road? No. The road should be considered public property and should not be highjacked at the expense of one group or another group.
You're welcome!
Fifty percent of our media should be public. That's the problem.
I don't know much about this but i will say this... Fox News would be screwed ! I'm all for it ! lol
The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine is what made Rush, and Fox News possible. When the law was in effect, broadcasters had to provide equal time to opposing viewpoints, all together. In my opinion, that was a better system. With the way news is delivered now, conservatives and liberals have segregated themselves away from each other. The results are clear.
I never knew about the Fairness Doctrine but you are right. They way it works now just divides us into little groups... And what i said before still stands. If it would help get rid of Fox News I'm all for it. lol =)
That's why I said in my post at the root of the thread that the repeal is one of the biggest disasters of the 20th Century. When you consider the original intent and the period when it was implemented. It was after WWII and people were still asking how Germany, one of the most advanced countries on Earth at the time, with a capital known for its social liberalism, which also enjoyed democracy and practiced chrisitanity could have accepted a totalitarian regime that perpetrated unbelievable atrocities. The Nz's came to power at the same time that mass communication was introduced with radio and film. There are specific examples that illustrate how public opinion was influenced and how people were conditioned to accept beliefs that made Fascism possible. In 1949, there was unanimous consent in the US that we didn't want anything like that here. Ironically, 15 years after its repeal, it's easy to see how a segment of the population is conditioned in a way, to accept ideas that are fundamentally destructive.
Thanks for explaining it in more depth. =) I was about to go look it up and try to find more information, i really had no idea what it was. To be honest, i never even heard of it until i came across this post.
That is absolutely true! Because of this we have been subject to a conservative media agenda ever since. We need an informed public on the truth to what is happening in this country than all the junk that passes for news these days. Today, anything that merely hints at the truth is passed off as liberal bias. To hear Republicans speak on any issue is to listen lies and appeals to the glen becks and Limbaughs of this world.
Bump for nostalgia.
It seems to me that the fairness Doctrine is older than the 70s though.
In fact the link shows roots all the way back to 1937.
I agree with the rest.
Someday soon you'll wish you hadn't let them take away your access.
What do you mean?
Many people do not know about this. I only became aware of it recently.
Yeah, a friend told me about it. I had no idea that anyone had ever considered such a think. But I think it's important that it be discussed.
I don't believe there should ever be any laws that limit free speech on the entire population. What I would support, however, is a public network bound by said laws, with private networks remaining as they are. This would give people the opportunity to chose between honest reporting or the National Inquirer, for example. Some people don't want the truth, because of the entertainment value of alternatives. That should remain the consumers choice.
Interesting idea. Who would the public network be regulated by the FCC?
We have public broadcast news now...but it doesn't compete with FOX news, which has no problems with lying.
Unfortunatly without taking corporations out of the government we cannot do this.
bring it back, we're obviously not mature enough as a people to go forward without it.
Let's restrict the first amendment and put requirements on equal time for every viewpoint.
While we're at it, after we re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, let's do a blackout on Ron Paul and not let him get equal time - because that's what's happening right now.
This kind of nanny state bullcr@p is exactly the tyrannical babysitting we don't need.
I would guess you are an intolerant liberal who wants to shut up anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview.
Under the Fairness Doctrine, Ron Paul would get more coverage than he is getting now, because broadcaster would have to give him equal time to express his viewpoints which differ from mainstream republicans and democrats.
I would persoanlly like to hear more from Ron Paul in the media.
Well, I still think that having the government regulate/dictate free speech is not a good prospect.
The free market is the best regulator of these networks. People should be able to watch/listen to any political network or station of their choice.
Just because one group doesn't agree with another's political stance doesn't give them license to shut up their candidate or their channel, or force them to arbitrarily give someone equal time. Political discourse should be open and free - if people are caught lying, then you can sue them for defamation, but - the government should have absolutely no role in governing political discourse and free speech.
I don't agree with Fox News, but I wholeheartedly back up their right to their opinion and perspective on reporting events. Plus I don't think their reporting is any more biased in the conservative direction than CNN is biased in the liberal direction. Liberals should be careful what they wish for if they want to 'shut the Fox up'!
The problem with Fox is that they pass off editorializing as journalism or in some cases tell outright lies. I don't know if you saw the eariler post by thebeastchasingitstail. Here is the link http://baltimorechronicle.com/lyingislegal_apr03.html. A Florida Appeals Court ruled that it was legal to broadcast false or misleading information.
It may be legal, but is this good for Democracy? Where stations can broadcast false information passed off as fact, and listeners are none the wiser? This makes it easy for whoever owns a station to push whatever agenda they wish be it based in fact or not.
No, and you brought up an EXTREMELY important point - the judges need to be reigned in as well. There has to be a means by which the citizens can recall a judge and remove him from the bench.
Here's a judge that told Wisconsin citizens that food freedom is not a right, then he quit and just went to work for Monsanto.
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/%E2%80%98no-food-rights%E2%80%99-judge-quits-to-work-for-monsanto-law-firm/
Corruption is rampant, folks. We need to address this incestuous relationship between the courts and the corporations as well.
I'll have to tweet that article.
Not to get off the "no lying in media topic" but don't some companies make you sign non-competition clauses? Why can't we have that for public employees including judges? This is one of the ways that corporate america is manipulating our political system. John Perkins points this out in his autobiography, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man."
Last night I noticed that a user who was making #occupymonsanto posts couldn't be re-tweeted. Twitter is owned by JP Morgan...they may be censoring us on GMOs.
Did you see Perkins recent talk on the world crisis? He is really awesome.
The point is to add viewpoints. Not subtract. And that they should all be presented together so that the viewer is exposed to more than one opinion. It was introduced in 1949. Television was new and people were afraid of the power that television would have. Just look at how divided we are today only 15 years after the law was repealed.
I definitely agree. People can be as opinionated as they want, but there should be as little distortion of the facts as possible and outright lies need to STOP.
And who would you cuff first, Obama? What about msnbc?
The bickering on this thread about what constitutes a fact is proof that it can't be done as policing the media.
This country was founded on the concept of freedom of speech, which includes freedom of the media. We need to keep it that way.
There were no provisions in the Fairness Doctrine relating to whether program content was true or false. It required equal air time for opposing viewpoints. The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 out of concern about the ability of mass media to mislead the public. Television broadcasting was new and there were many questions about its power to influence. Why? Only 10 years prior, even before TV, the Nazis had been able to use radio and films to mold public opinion in Germany. In 1949, people agreed that we needed to protect our freedoms from the risks that could be presented by zealots or tyrants. It worked well until the 1980's when government became the problem as Reagan said in his famous speech. We were complacent by then and the law was repealed. The results have been disastrous and are getting progressively worse.
So, what you are saying is that now, when we have exponentially more access to news and opinion, that somehow, it is no longer fair?
If the Fairness Doctrine would be re instituted, the MSM would be the ones most affected.
I don't like to use the word "fair" and it was called "equal time" which is more accurate. There's no such thing as fair, even with equal time, anyway. If you agree with the talking head, it's fair. Right? There was an obligation to present the opposing viewpoint so that the public couldn't be brainwashed, and I'm describing it like that for a reason. I don't think it was the right decision to give up on it. If it was reinstated it would only affect radio and television broadcasters. But so much has changed. For example, I think religious broadcasters might have had an exemption, but today there are religious stations that air mostly political viewpoints. I don't see how the internet could be affected and we don't want to lose the freedom we have there. So why would I accept an equal time requirement on the MSM and not the internet? The MSM is owned by powerful corporations that use it to promote their own agenda to help gain advantages for themselves. And there isn't realistic feasible open access to compete against that. As of today, the internet is still wide open for anyone to advance their ideas.
You don't want to lose the freedom we have with the internet, but the hell with the freedom we have with TV and radio? That makes no sense. It's all media.
No. It's not the same. There's no open access to the MSM to present opposing viewpoints.
And there is no requirement that anyone watches or listens. The government has no freaking right to dictate how much of what we can see or hear. That goes to the very core of freedom. The government can never be put in a role of deciding what is broadcast on TV or radio, or anywhere else.
If it's a threat to free speech then why do you want it? The Fairness Doctrine is nothing but squelching free speech. If the FD ever made sense, which it didn't, it was because there so few outlets for programming. But now with cable and the internet (including this blog!!!) there is no shortage of outlets.
The FD is simply a canard to get more liberal talk shows. And I see you also want to outlaw "lies". Who gets to be the judge as to what is a lie?
As I said before, a statement passed of as truth that cannot be verified is a lie. A fact is by definition verifiable.
I have no interest in inhibiting free speech. I was simply interested in hearing the view points of others on the topic. Canada has laws against lies in the media and I found that interesting.
Thank you for your opinion.
And we have defamation of character laws, right?
That's true but these laws often don't stand up in court when it comes to public figures. To my knowledge, no one was ever prosecuted for the smear campaign against John McCain in 2000 when fliers and phone calls flew around claiming that McCain had sired and illegitemate black child. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?pagewanted=2
Also, it is not illegal to make up facts. i.e. 75% of welfare recipients report an addiction to methamphetamines. Is this ture? No, I just made it up.
Did you see thebeastchasingitstail's post earilier? A Florida court found that it was not illegal to lie or misrepresent the truth. http://baltimorechronicle.com/lyingislegal_apr03.html
And you want to tie up the court system whenever someone thinks someone has lied. Wow, we won't get anything else done. Just look at this site for one example.
The FCC simply revokes the license of a station that doesn't follow it's rules. Courts wouldn't necessarily be tied up. Besides, what is the point of the courts if they aren't tied up with making important decisions.
If you don't think this site has any purpose, why bother participating?
There would be an incredible amount of litigation if the FCC would revoke a license based on an alleged lie. The current system works......the "buyer" of the information has an obligation to "beware". The government can't go around holding kleenex's for everyone.
The current system does not work. The buyer isn't aware. Every news organization claims to be true and honest or fair and balanced or whatever.
It's like getting food poisoning at a restaurant because you assume the chef reads the sign in the bathroom that says "Employees must wash hands".
And, you didn't answer my question. Why participate in this forum if you think it is useless?
It can be interesting to see what some people say. There are some really unbelievable posts on here.
And maybe the buyer should start being aware. This is part of the fallout from the government doing way too much for people. People need to think on their own more than they do.
I agree with you. I wish people would do more thinking. I welcome all the comments I have recieved on this thread, even the ones I don't agree with, because they contain ideas I would not have thought of myself.
Thank you, ;)
What do you mean?
We already have laws against lying.
Free speech includes lying.
Imagine if the government could just decide all 9/11 truthers were lying and prosecute them for doing so.
That is what such laws will lead to, the silencing of dissent.
No thanks.
You misunderstand the real purpose of the Fairness Doctrine which was in effect from 1950 -1986. Broadcast media were obligated to provide equal air time for opposing viewpoints. It had nothing to do with truth or lying. That would have been impossible to enforce. Air time however is something that could be measured in minutes, and broadcasters were obligated to maintain this standard. Professional journalists who intended to deliver factual news over the airwaves were expected to take equal time into consideration, as well as attribution (who said it) and substantiation (why they said it.) Nowadays, news personalities use statements like "people are saying" or "we hear" and the journalist profession is completely degraded.
The OP suggested we should ban "lying on the air".
I disagree with that completely, as I disagree with the Fairness doctrine. Any kind of restriction on speech is one step on the road to tyranny.
If someone criticizes a mass murderer, are you going to require equal time of an opposing viewpoint praising murder as well?
It worked beautifully and seamlessly and very few people complained.
The end of the Fairness Doctrine coincides with the date that Rupert Murdoch acquired 20th century Fox and several other large US publishing & broadcasting outfits. It also coincides with Ronald Reagan's dismantling of democracy in this country.
Hello. I'm glad to see your comments. I've been posting in this thread out of a sense of duty to provide some factual information. It looks like you know the history and you're just in time because I have to exit.
Your example is the same type of specious argument that was used to repeal the law. It only pertained to program content reflecting political viewpoints. (I don't have time right now to find and quote the statutory language.) It wasn't intended as a forum to promote or defend illegal activities such as murder and it didn't function that way. But in the years before it was repealed there were many arguments like yours that were advanced and even examples of broadcasters that aired absurd commentary to demonstrate their opposition against the law.
Your point is interesting to me because it does bring up the need for clear and specific legal language when OWS proposes changes that it would like. The mess that was created in our financial system originated partly by people who were able to exploit gaps in laws and regulations or twist them to create a novel defense.
I'll have to try to find and Supreme Court cases to that affect. Does anyone else know of any?
Fraud does not fall under free speech.
The First Amendment is misunderstood by many. For example, you might hear people say that Hank Williams Jr's first amendment rights were violated because ESPN fired him after he said something controversial on television about the president. But the first amendment doesn't apply. The first amendment protects a citizen's freedom of speech from government interference. That's all. It doesn't prevent an employer, for example, from curtailing speech. It also doesn't permit an individual from shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, just to create mayhem. You will find case law on that if you google.
Yes, my constitutional law class is coming back to me....I wonder if legislation against lying on the air would stand up in the Supreme Court, hate speech in not protected speech either. Why would false statments passed off as fact in order to manipulate listeners be protected?
I don't know whether falsification is protected. I know laws are different in other countries. For example, friends of mine in France are surprised to hear that neo-nz's aren't locked up in the US.
You would have to find falsifications and prove that they were deliberate as well as intent. The last is the hardest. It's easy to say that certain broadcasters are doing the equivalent of shouting "Fire" and attempting to create mayhem in our political system. As the accuser, you need proof that they knew their content was untrue and deliberately decided to air it anyway, and that they had a larger intent to cause damage to somebody or something, and finally, that they did indeed cause such damage. There's probably no case without damages attributable directly back to content that was aired.
We value dissent and freedom and unfortunately we have examples all around us that show how those ideals can be misused.
Who decides what facts are true and false? If the government decides that "9/11 truthers" are passing false statements, they would be able to effectively silence dissent.
Why do you feel it is so important to elites to not only control how we live, but what we say and even what we think?
The point of making these rules would be to prevent elites from being the only people who have a voice.
It would ensure that they could silence dissent, so it would empower them further.
Against lying on the air? To the contrary, Fox's right to tel lies has been upheld in federal court. They have no legal obligation to tell the truth on the air.
No one was prosecuted under the Fairness Doctrine. It was part of the terms of a TV or radio station's license.
Dont we have to define "truth" first before you can define lying?
No, "truth" would be that which can be verified by facts. If someone were to say something that was an out right lie, (i.e., Obama kills Christians in Africa) with no verifiable evidence, there would be a penalty. Opinion does not fall under this category. But differing opinions should be given equal time on the air.
Journalism has really gone down hill in this country since the 70s/80s. Maybe some of our political problems are due to the dissemination of misleading information.
You're right, "truth" was not considered a gray area back then. People would have felt foolish saying the things that kestrel is saying.
If a piece of information cannot be verified by a reliable source, it is by definition, not a face. In my mind, the difference between fact and non-fact is an obvious distinction.
who gets to verify the facts? As even fact check can't agree with itself on what are facts... Global warming is not a verifiable fact, can't talk about that, Bush was elected president, not a verifiable fact, the Holocaust happened , some people claim that isn't a verifiable fact, the masons / rothchilds / bankers / etc. run the war.. not a verifiable fact!
Facts are by definition, verifiable.
"But differing opinions should be given equal time on the air."
Would all media fall under this?
Correct me if I'm wrong all you journalism people out there, but I believe this only applied to radio/tv, which are regulated by the FCC. Radio and TV waves are made possible by public funds and therefore, they should serve the public good was the idea behind the rules.
Newspapers and the internet would not full under this, and perhaps not cable TV.
Yes it only applied to broadcast. It was introduced in the very early days of the first television broadcasts.
Does this mean the MEDIA would have to vet Obama. If these laws were enactled he wouldn't have been able to run.
And we would never have gone to war in Iraq based on false claims of "yellow cake".
except it was the yellow cake part which was true and the chemical / biological weapons factories that were false.
Yellow cake removed in 2008 by the U.S. was not the yellow cake that Bush used to justify war with Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html
Documents showing that Iraq tried to buy yellow cake from Africa were based on forgeries. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/international/europe/04italy.html?scp=3&sq=yellow%20cake%20false&st=cse
See, I just fact checked you. It's not that hard.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.Tp8ed3KyBIU
See I fact checked too and got a different answer.. thus the problem
I'm not saying you are wrong but you can't claim truth either.
This is a quote from the MSNBC article: "Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
The yellow cake that was removed in 2008 was not the same yellow cake that Bush claimed Iraq was trying to buy in 2003. As the quote states, this yellow cake had been in Iraq since 1991. The yellow cake that was removed had nothing to do with the justification for the Iraq war.
This yellow cake was a part of a muddled nuclear power program and could not have been used for weapons of mass destructions.
You misunderstood the MSNBC article.
Nope, just making a point :) There is so much in this whole disagreement in that we can't agree on any truth. health care bill increases / decreases cost.. facts on both sides, Bush lied / bush didn't lie... facts on both sides.. 1% is evil / charitable... evidence on both sides....
big hugs!
I am operating on the premise that a fact is by definition verifiable. If there is a piece of information flying around the air waves or the internet but it can't be verified, then it is not a fact.
I realize the many people twist facts for their own gain, but this falls under the category of editorializing, which is sadly mistaken for journalism these days.
Gonna have to shut down this site as well, so many outright lies from OWS participants and since there is no leadership there is no way to verify who is and who is not OWS.
At first I would have agreed with this statement, but now I agree with the admins of this site for not editing comments. Those who seek to undermine OWS with dishonesty and sensationalism will have their reward, though we may never witness it.
Bringing back beheadings, burnings, and drownings? I'm in. Kill the trolls
can't because the trolls have to get equal time!
But if we label Trolls as 1%rs then that opens the door, right?
don't the 1% get equal time? it is the definition of fairness right?
ok, how about an iron maiden with dull spikes?
I cannot agree with violence towards others simply because they have nothing better to do than undermine legitimate concerns on the internet.
The Fairness Doctrine was specific. It was only applied to broadcast radio and television.
Did not have the internet back then. gotta keep up with the times.
The logic was scarcity. Limited number of radio/tv channels that were operated under license from govt.
It shouldn't apply to internet or cable.
You are correct. I had no idea that Freedom of Expression (speech) meant equal time has to be given.
I don't think it would be applicable to the internet. It was based on a concept which has become an anachronism. The airwaves belong to the people.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=16&gs_id=1q&xhr=t&q=do+the+airwaves+belong+to+the+people&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=do+the+airwaves+&aq=0v&aqi=g-v1&aql=f&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=4bc23f8df9681a44&biw=1249&bih=569